Dismissed

Sulochana v. Murugesan (Died)

Madras HC7 Aug 2023CRP(MD)/203/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged an order allowing legal heirs to implead themselves in a partition suit 889 days after the plaintiff's death. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that delay should not bar impleading legal representatives and dismissed the revision, directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within 6 months.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit within 6 months.

Sulochana Vs Murugesan (Died) — Partition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD)No.893 of 2019

1.Sulochana

2.Prakash

3.Brindha

4.Praveen Kumar

¶11

5.Sathish Kumar

¶12

6.Rajesh

¶13

...Petitioners/Respondents/ Defendants

Vs.

Murugesan (Died)

1.Thangam

2.Thilagam

¶18

3.Malathi

¶19

4.Rajamanickam

¶20

5.Suresh

¶21

6.Arun

¶22

...Respondents/Petitioners/ Proposed Plaintiffs

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

1/5

¶25

C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019

¶26

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.10.2018 in I.A.No.473 of 2018 in O.S.No.132 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Lalgudi.

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sasikumar For R1 to R6 : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed

¶30

by the Sub Court, Lalgudi in I.A.No.473 of 2018 in O.S.No.132 of 2018, dated 23.10.2018.

¶31

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per

¶32

the litigative status before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein are the respondents/defendants and the respondents herein are the petitioners/proposed plaintiffs before the Court below.

¶33

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. When the

¶34

suit was pending, the sole plaintiff died on 05.10.2013. Therefore, the other legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff filed an application to implead themselves as the plaintiffs. It appears that there was a delay of 889 days

¶35

in filing such application.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

2/5

¶38

C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019

¶39

However, the respondents/defendants objected the application

¶40

on the ground that the reason assigned in the petition is not believable. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application.

¶41

The Trial Court after considering either side submission has

¶42

ultimately allowed the application on payment of cost.

¶43

I have given my anxious consideration to either side

¶44

submissions.

¶45

The sum and substance of the contention of the respondent is that delay in impleading the proposed plaintiffs cannot be condoned. It is a settled principle of law that while impleading the legal representatives, the Court should not be more hyper technical. Even in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Rudrappa vs Shivappa r eported in 2004 12 SCC 253, it has been held that even if there is no application for delay condonation and set aside the abatement to implead the legal heirs, prayer for impleading should not be declined. Therefore, in view of the above settled principle of law, this Court could not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Court below. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

3/5

¶47

C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019

¶48

learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.132 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed . No

¶50

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

07.08.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn

¶52

¶53

1.The Sub Court, Lalgudi.

¶54

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

4/5

¶57

C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019

¶58

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶59

¶60

C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019

¶61

07.08.2023

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

5/5

Sulochana v. Murugesan (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana v. Murugesan (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ponnusamy, Vs Ambikavathi

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs P.Manimekalai

C.Radhakrishnan, Vs S.Ramanathan (Dead)

Arumugam, Vs Rajambal

Rajabagadhur, Vs Gururajammal,W/O.a.Muniyandi

M.Jeyabose Vs G.Subramania Pillai